Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
Statement: " Don't try to get the military sympathy vote."

Comment: I asked a question, above is your presumptive non-answer. I'll take it as a "no"
As for the truth, or tone of it, I will consider the source; .....who are you? You still
have trouble mistaking opinion for truth; my opinion is the that the truth to you is
whatever is immediately expedient.

don't like the truth or the tone of it.
>
> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>> You are the one guilty of what you accuse others of, and you do it under the
>> convenient cloak of anonymity. Also prevents any action or investigation into your
>> more rabid remarks. You also make personal attacks and include family members in your
>> winding diatribes. How brave, convenient, and confidence inspiring.
>>
>> At least you've toned down your more aggressive remarks.
>>
>> Have you or any of your family members served in the military?
>>
>>
>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>> You couldn't verify my lack of financial interest even if I gave you my name and a
>>> DNA sample. You would still make unsupported accusations and paranoid, conspiracy,
>>> RICO, boogeyman claims simply because I disagree with you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>> For the umpteenth time, I fail to feel a need or desire to answer personal
>>>> questions from an anonymous poster. It is unimportant to me.
>>>>
>>>> Your alleged lack of financial interests cannot be verified due to your
>>> anonymity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>> For the umpteenth time, my name is not important; I have no financial interests
>>>>> in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did your husband die? Where is your child that lived with you while you
>>>>> were allegedly exposed to chlordane, etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>> Mike B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you say your name was?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what is your interest in this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have financial interests in this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>> I remain unconcerned. Intimidate away, it is what you try to do best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, in the legal arena, words are often re-defined for purposes
>>>>>>> of litigation. Again, I said, I like juries....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bear some resentment toward the landlords that poisoned me and failed to
>>>>>>> disclose defects in the places they put out to lease despite my informing
>>>>>>> them of my health issues. Would a mother have some remaining ire against
>>>>>>> someone who promulgated a paper based on a single rodent study and testified
>>>>>>> as an expert using that same paper, despite having no clinical experience,
>>>>>>> that was used in an unsuccessful attempt to deny a claim made by said
>>>>>>> mother; a reasonable person might? I believe a decent, reasonable person
>>>>>>> might try to warn an unsuspecting public of a grave and imminent danger
>>>>>>> being perpetrated upon them. I believe Sharon Kramer is a decent, reasonable
>>>>>>> person; I fail to hold her detractor in a similar light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What this man did, he did for hire. And the conclusion he reached is suspect
>>>>>>> by many, including real doctors and researchers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> "I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
>>>>>>>> being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, that's frickin hillarious. Are you saying Kelman should have a
>>>>>>>> jury trial because Sharon Kramer has a grudge against him? The appellate
>>>>>>>> court seems to think she does:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Additionally, there was other evidence presented which could support a
>>>>>>>> finding KRAMER HAD A CERTAIN ANIMOSITY AGAINST KELMAN. Kelman gave an
>>>>>>>> expert opinion in Kramer's lawsuit against her insurance company seeking
>>>>>>>> damages caused by the presence of mold in her home. Kelman stated there
>>>>>>>> did not appear to be a greatly increased level of risk of mold inside the
>>>>>>>> home compared to the levels in the air outside the home. While the Kramer
>>>>>>>> family eventually settled and recovered damages from the insurance
>>>>>>>> company, a reasonable jury could infer that KRAMER HARBORED SOME
>>>>>>>> ANIMOSITY TOWARD KELMAN for providing expert services to the insurance
>>>>>>>> company and not supporting her position." Emphasis mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secondly, this was a pretrial matter where Sharon Kramer filed a motion
>>>>>>>> to strike the Kelman suit because Kramer thought it was a silly old SLAPP
>>>>>>>> suit. No jury hears pretrial motions. The court does, though, and it held:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Kramer brought a section 425.16 motion to strike the complaint. The
>>>>>>>> court denied the motion, concluding that although Kramer had sustained
>>>>>>>> her burden of showing the complaint fell within the scope of section
>>>>>>>> 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) and (4), Kelman and GlobalTox had sustained
>>>>>>>> their burden of showing a probability they would prevail on their libel
>>>>>>>> claim."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, you will have a tough time defending yourself for your
>>>>>>>> statements about Kelman based on your "I like juries" defense for
>>>>>>>> ignoring a court's ruling. Especially when you make essentially the exact
>>>>>>>> statement that Kramer did and for which she is now being sued.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best of luck with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
>>>>>>>>> being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge. Exposing the
>>>>>>>>> fallacies that impact public health in a paper written and promulgated
>>>>>>>>> by a principal in the company might make the exposee a bit testy. I'd
>>>>>>>>> be curious to see if any of the "deciders" were ever involved in any
>>>>>>>>> cases using where the disgruntled party was used as an expert witness,
>>>>>>>>> either behind or in front of the bench; that would include law partners,
>>>>>>>>> firms, other businesses, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In this case, it was "judges" - the trial judge, and an appellate
>>>>>>>>>> panel of judges who affirmed the trial judge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>" So, you're willing to defend your statement based upon "the paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the transcripts" even though there has been a finding by a
>>>>>>>>>>>> court which says that the doctor did not alter his testimony?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say the "court", do you mean a judge or a jury?